Loading...
Minutes-PC 1971/10/18:, C - . _ , ~ ~ ' . ~ ~ ~ . . .. . . ~ `~ j .l~ ~ ! V City Hail Anaheim, California October 18, 1971 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION +cr+VULHZ( ~ A regular meeting oE the Anaheim City Planning Commission was MEETING called to order by Chairman Farano at 2:00 P.M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Farano. ~ ; Y = COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour ,.,, ~ , ABSENT . COMMISSIONERS: Gauer. ,T . `: ' PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson Zonin S ~- g upervisor: Deputy City ,~ttorney: Charles Robezts ~ i Office En Frank I,owry gineer: ~ Jay Titus Assistant 2oning Supervzsor: : Commission Secretary: Don McDaniel - Ann Krebs "~ r; PLEDGE OF A.L•LEGIANCE - Commissioner Seymour led in the Pledge of Alle giance to the Flag ,x. Ri , «~ ;~ APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES - Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to approve the minutes of th ri ' e October 4, 1971, meeting, seconded by Co;nmissioner ~6a+rc~r and MOTIO ( ~ ~ , N CARRIED, subject to the foll~wi ng corrections: § Pg. 71-625, para. 9, add: Sept. 8, 1971, minute correction - j Pg. 71-574, para. 3, lines 3 and 4 ;~ should read: "....Ordinance. The other :`:•; ~~~rF:. Del Taco on Euclid Street and Tedmar :? Avenue had a lot split while this one s~ did not." ~ ~ Pg. 71-631, para. 2, line 4, should be "sister-in-law". Pg- 71-632 a , ,. ~ , p ra. 4, line 3, should be "hot corned beef", `'.c~< AREA DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY ~~ PLAN NO. 107 PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, "'~ California; to consider circulation and access for an "4'~ area on the south side oE Sroadwa '~~;. to the Southern Pacific Railroad trackst of Loara Street, •q ~ Subject area development plan was continued from the May 17, June 14, August 9, and September 20, 1971, meetings to allow time for the property owners in the ;,;,~~ study area to submit development plans. `i ^,'~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel noted for the Conmission that subject ~ area development plan encompassed property that would be considered for '~:~ reclassification on November 1,, 1971; therescore, staff recommended that it be `:-;~ continued to be considered in aonjunction with both Reclassification No. ':'~ 70-71-43 and No. 71-72-18. '~.i ';, Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of Area ' Development Plan No. 107 to the meeting of November 1, 1971, to be considered I in conjunction with Realassification Nos. 70-71-43 and 71-72-18. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIED. 3r ~ '~ 4 ? RECLASSIFICATION NO. 70-71-43 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ATLANTIC MQTORS, INC. H R , , . . McNeil, President, 325 South Atlantic Soulevard Los ~k;:.. ~<_ ,., 'yi , Angeles, California, pwner; DONALD F. BUHLER AND M. L. BOWER, 4001 Birch Stre~t Aqents; requesting , that property described Newport Seach, California, ~ of land consisting as: of approximately 3.4 acres An irregularly-shaped parcel havin a f mately 90 feet on , the south side of Broadway, g rontage of approxi- having a maxi *'`:•, mum depth of ;~c '; 4 71-642 .. j~.. . ~' , ,.<, ~., ' ~ . :{i`, ~ .. 1:~ ~ . ...~ . ... ~ ' . . .. . , . . . ' .. .,. ~ - . ~ ~ f. ~ _r. { _ ~ . .. . ' - ~ .. . . ; ~ . ~ . :'y '?~ . . .. : . . , C . ' ~ ' G .- _ .. . . . .. . . .. ._ . . ~... . ~ ~C ~ . .. . ~y . . _ . ~ .~ . 5- ' _. ~ j . • ( ~. i . . . . ,' ~ I . . . ~ . ~ . .. . '~' ~ I~ ~~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1971 71-643 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 70-71-43 (Continued). `,~ ~ approximately 644 feet, and being located approxim~tely 991 feet east of the -` centerline of Loara Street, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meetings of April 19, May 17, June 14, August 9, and September 20, 1971, to allow time for the preparation of an area development plan that would provide circulation for those properties _ located souL•h of Broadway between Loara Street and the railroad tracks and ~~~ ~ for development plans to be submitted. r'~ ~~? Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel noted for the Commission that subject ,' property was a portzon of Area Develupment Plan No. 107, and that the adjoin- = ing property would be considered for reclassification on November 1, 1971; ~~^ therefore, staff would recommend that subject petition be continued to ' November 1, 1971, in order to be considered in conjunction with the area }' sy~: development plan and the other reclassification petition. ~'. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of Reclassi- ~~ fication No. 70-71-43 to the meeting of November 1, 1971, to be heard in _ conjunction with Area Development Plan No. 107 and Reclassification No. _T~L 70-71-18. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. /. 7. ~ ;./s' fa RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF ..~ ~ NO. 70-71-56 LATTER DAY SAINTS, 10 South Main, Room 214, Salt Lake City, Utah, Owner; SHOWCASE HOMES, 14482 Beach Boulevard, ._.;; CONDITIONAL USE Suite W, Westminster, California, Agent; property described ~; PERMIT NO. 1244 as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of `~ approximately 4.4 acres having a frontage of approximately ,;: TENTATIVE MAP OF 245 feet on the east side of Euclid Street, having a ! ;` TRACT NO. 7439 maximum depth of approximately 491 feet, and being located =.:;=:~i approximately 660 feet south of the centerline of Orange- ~`•:"';;; wood Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, 'ti;;;.;;;,..:r AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ~` i"`s REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. ~~ ~ REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A 47-UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM ~~ DEVELOPMENT WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM LOT SIZE, ~ ^~;1~ (2) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, (3) REQUIREMENT THAT A LOT HAVE STREET FRONTAGE, AND (4) MAXIMUM PERMITTED ` `;x~; BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF AN R-A ZONE. =~? ; i t ' Q `~`t TENTATIVE TRACT RE UEST: DEVELOPER: WM. J. KRUEGER, 14482 Beach Boulevard, j a~. Suite K, Westminster, California. ENGTrIEER: i ~,~;~; RAAB & SOYER ENGINEERING COMPANY, 14482 Beach ~ ;~~ Boulevard, Suite I, Westminster, California. (<`;; Subject tract is proposed for subdivision into ; 49 R-3 zoned lots. I -. :~5 `''``'*` Subject petitions were continued from the June 14, July 12 and 26, and :: ;',+.; - August 23, 1971, meetings to allow time for the petitioner to.resolve the illegal lot split problem. ?,=,I 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that althouqh staff had recommended ~ termination of subject petitions based on the fact that the petitioner had submitted a letter requesting termination, staff had received new information ~ since the report was written but had not contacted the petitioner, and said ,> information could change the petitioner's mind; therefore, staff would now recommend a two-week continuance in order for staff to apprise the petitioner of the new information. ;;.~r The Commission discussed the latest information and then inquired whether two weeY,s would be adequate in the event the petitioner might wish to pursue the !~ , reclassif:cation action. Whereupon Mr. Roberts noted that the original plans submitted had been advertised with the waivers requested and neededj however, with the new information, he could for~_ae the possibility of another waiver. '- Therefore, it might be more appropriate to cortinue the petitions four weeks, A' which would give staff additional time to readvertise the petitions in the ~`~ ~~ event the petitioner was desirous of processing this proposal. ~ . ~ - _i ;- _ c-_~ ~ ``~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1971 71-644 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 70-71-56, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1244, AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7439 (Continued) - :r,:.~, Commissioner Allred offered a motion to continue consi.deration of Reclassi- fication No. 70-71-56, Conditional Use Permit No. 1244r and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7439 to the meeting of November 15, 1971, in order to allow time for staff to apprise the petitioner of new information and for possible readvertising of said petitions. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~:~' i~ ~fo-~.:.:,!.:,~y ~ '~~^ RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ROBERT H. GRANT CORP. 1665 " , N0. 70-71-64 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; ~~' ;1 property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of '~'• " CONDITIONAL USE lar.d consisting of approximately 15.2 acres, having a ~:~ PERMIT NO. 1247 frontage of approximately 1,526 feet on the north ~ide '~r ~ of Walnut Canyon P,oad, having a maximum depth of approxi- TENTA TIVE MAP OF inately 600 feet, and being located approximately 6,000 ^ TRACT NO. 7444 feet southeast of Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property ;-. ~:. presently classified COUNTY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT. ' "i REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PC, PLANNED COMMUNITY, ZONE. ! i r ; Y~ REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. ''~ ' ~ ~ ~' TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: SUBDIVISION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY INTO 25 ~ a~ ' ~ SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AND 51 CONDOMINIUM I,OTS. s ~ `~~ ,'; Subject petitions and tract were continued from the meetings of June 28 ``F~ ' '~ , July 12, and September 8, 1971, to allow time for the petitioner and staff '~~'~ ;° '. '- ~: '~~ to present alternate plans for the realignment of Walnut Canyon Road and for th - , _.~ ~ ~ e submission of revised plans. . ~ ~ T ~ ~ :~ ~_ Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel advised the Commission that although ~p:...,~ the Engineering Division had completed their studies regaXdiny the elevation '~,~t,;,~ ` and alignment of Walnut Canyon Road, the petitioner had not submitted revised u'~.-. .t':~ plans encompassing this information ~ r~- ~ ~~ . . s.r` ~~~ Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue consideration of Reclassi- i' '~• fication No. 70-71-64, Conditional Use Permit No. 1247, and Tentative Map of i r: .,t~ Tract No. 7444 to the meeting of November 29, 1971, to allow the developer i k, ,~ time to present revised plans. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion ;..,,~`, .: . MOTION CARRIED. ~d ~ VARIANCE NO. 2281 - PUBLIC HEARING. J. P. EDMONDSON PROPERTIES, LTD., 1380 I ! South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owner; i ~ : '~ FEDERAL SIGN & SIGNAL CORP., 1100 North Main Street, Los A l i , , nge es, California, Agent; requesting waiver of (1) maximum aggregate ,?,.,,_,~~i, ~ sign area, (2) maximum number of signs, and (3) distance between free-standing ~ ; ' signs to permit an additional free-standing sign on property described as: : ,~ An irregularly-shaped parcel of land lying south and east of a 120-foot by `•.;:'s3 150-foot parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard j: ,~ ~ and Manchester Avenue and having frontages of approximately 135 feet on Harbor ' ;, f ~' r Boulevard and a roximatel 460 feet on Manchester Avenue. Pro ert PP y p y presently a~ classified C-R, COMMERCIAL-RECREATION, ZONE ~ .: 1 . ~ ~; Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel noted for the Commission that the ~,;; -,~. petitioner had requested a two-week continuance to allow time to revise the ~; ~~ discrepancies in the submitted plans and to readvertise the petition. ~ i .,~' ` Commissioner Allred offerc3 a motion to continue consa.deration of Petition ": _ ;6 for Variance No. 2281 to the meetiny- of November 1, 1971, to allow time for e~~ `: ` the petitioner to revise plans and for staff to readvertise the petition. ~ , Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. i 1~, . f ! ;j ~ ; R-~. , . , ; i.~;:' i ;:, _ i i . . . ' i - •I ~ - ~ i ~ ~~? .• • ~ .. ~ Y F'• f . .~ ' .,.~. , ~_ . . • ,: . .: ~ ' . . ' ~ --'l ~ ' , . w,~ ~ ~.~ .. . . . ""1'~ .^y-. ~m ,... -<Y~~. ~ . . . -~ . ~.~ .. . . .. . _ . G. . . ~ ~ ' . ~ ' . ~ _ . . . _} .. ... ~ . _ , .... . -,~.. . . . . . . . ~. ~ _ . ~ . _ . • t~L ' 'l /~ t ~ ,~ 1 . . . . - ~. " . . . . .. . "~ . . ' ,. . . ~ \~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1971 ~~~ 71-645 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ANAHEIM HILLS, INC. AND TEXACO VENTURES, PERMIT NO. 1271 INC., 1665 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; WILLIAM J. STARK, ANAHEIM HILLS, INC., 1665 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A PRIVATE RECREATIONAL FACILITY CONSISTING OF A COMMERCIAL EQUESTRIAN CENTER A:~D VETERTNARIAN FACILITIES on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting o£ approximately 20 acres located in the Santa Ana Canyon area approximately 2~ miles south of Santa Ana Canyon Road and approximately ~ mile southwest of Walnut Canyon Reservoir at the southerly terminus of Walnut Canyon Road. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE, ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel advised the C~mmission tha;t the applicant had requested a thirty-day continuance to more completely formalize ,rj,._ ~, plans and to draft a legal description of the property in question. ~~~ ' `' Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition ~,'. ~ for Conditional Use Permit No. 1271 to the meeting of November 15, 1971, in 1~ order to allow time for the petitioner to formalize the plans and to draft a .,: legal description, Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ti: ';i ~~ RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CLAUDE A. SHERWOOD, 806 South n NO. 71-72-16 Robertson, Los Angeles, California, Owner; LeRoy Rose, ~~;;;,:-;'~; 1440 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, California, ~~: Agent; requesting that property described as: An ~; irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.34 acres at :+:'. the northwest corner of Riverdale and Lakeview Avenues, with approximate ti; frontages of 296 feet on Riverdale Avenue and 310 feet on Lakeview Avenue a-.:!,.~~~ be reclassified from the R-A(SC), AGRICULTURAL (SCENIC GORRIDOR), ZONE to the 2;, C-1(SC), GENERAL COMMERCIAL (SCENIC CORRIDOR), 20NE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of September 20, 1971, in orde= that staff could present additional information regarding the need for commercial uses at this location, and for a full Commission to be present. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, the reason for continuance, and the proposal to establish a small convenience shopping center with a service station on subject property, Mr. McDaniel, in evaluating the proposal, reviewed statements of the General Plan regarding the location of commercial facilities or neighborhood shopping centers which could serve 1,000 to 1,500 families; and that the area which the proposal would serve would have approximately 850 families residing in an area bounded by the Riverside Freeway and the Santa Ana River. Furthermore, since the petitioner at the previous meeting had indicated that the service station would be developed first and the Commission had expressed concern that this would be contrary to the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, staff had consulted with the City Attorney to obtain the aeaning and intent of the word "integrated" and had been advised that it was the City Attorney's opinion that the Code requirement meant a service station must be "part of" a shopping center, not simply "adjacent to" the shopping center. In addition, the City Attorney stated that "integrated" encompassed both physical and temporal aspects of the development; therefore, the service station would have to be designed so as to physically relate to the center in which it was to be located, and it could not be constructed prior to construction of the commer- cial center since the commercial center. must be constructed prior to or in conjunction with the construction of the service station. Finally, the land- scaping proposal on the site plan would conform to the SC Zone requirements. Mr. C. A. Sherwood, the petitioner and owner of the property, appeared before the Commission and noted that since there was only about 2 acres of land, with the service station taking approximately 1 acre, this would leave only an acre for other commercial uses; that it was his intent to build a complete facility if subject petition were approved; that the property was surrounded on the north and west by the hospital and medical offices proposed, and since they were insulated by these facilities, they planned to have the same architect so that this commercial center would have the appearance of one unit. I ,~;.s::., _ -: _ - _ .. ,,~` c" ~ , . ' '~ . ~ ~ _~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ i i :;~ sr r {:.:.:-. ~. ;'•'t~~ 'Z . `.'! ~ `c ~: ' .f!! ~; ! ~ i .' f I _ G ~ l,~J {~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1971 RECL~,SSIFICAT~ON NO. 71-72-16 (Continued) 71-646 Chairman Farano advised Mr. Sherwood that the architect had made a very extensive presentation at the last hearing; however, there had been sub- stantial. opposition from single-family homeowners who felt this commercial facility would be in derogation of their living environment as proposed on the General Plan, therefore, he would request that the petitioner answer questions of the Commission, and he had a question - namely, did the petitioner intend to develop this center at one time or in segments? Whereupon Mr. Sherwood replied that he would do whatever the Commission required, and that he did not know the service station was proposed to be developed first since it was his intent to develop this as one commercial operation. Chairman Farano noted that it was the City Attorney's opinion that the shopping center and service station must be developed at the same time, and that he would then assume the petitioner could meet this requirement. Mr. Sherwood replied that this was his intent. Furthermore, the school, which was located 1,500 feet to the west of his property, was located on the south side of the street, and the children attending this school never used the front of his property to go to school; and that at the time the City requested land for street widening purposes, the amount required had provided for a very wide street which could handle traffic to and from the development to the north, toward Orangethorpe Avenue. Commissioner Seymour inquired of the petitioner whether or not he had read the minutes and wY,ether he was aware of the number of homeowners who were in opposition to the proposal. Mr. Sherwood replied that very often people were confronted with petitions to sign with statements of a fear factor; th.:t he did not wish to infer that these people did not know what they were signing, but these same people were also opposed to the hospital which was approved by the City of Anaheim; and that this commercial center would serve oeople living in the area so that they ; would not have to go four miles to a market or some other neighborhood services.; Commissioner Seymour noted that the petition was very clear as to their ~pposi- 1 tion, and these people knew what they were doing, even to state that they would ~ boycott the center if the petitioner planned ta be the owner of this commercial ' facility; therefore, he felt he should be fully informed of the feelings of i these residents. ; i Mr. Sherwood replied that people had a right to their own opinions, but when ' these people saw the attractiveness of the proposed center and its comp3tibility; with the hospital complex, they would accept it; that they would need the ' services that would be offered in this center since it was not their intent to build a large center; that these people caming from Orangethorpe Avenue would utilize this service station prior to going onto the freewayj and that the ' employees of the hospital would use the other facilities, as well. Commissioner Kayw~od inquired whether the petitioner was aware of the fact 1 that no high sign would be permitted for the service station which could be freeway oriented. Whereupon Mr. Sherwood replied that they did not plan to construct anything that would be in-poor taste, but they would cooperate with the Commission. Furthermore, it was his hope this would be a very attractive facility. Commissioner Kaywood observed that with over 400 people signing the petition which also noted they would boycott the center, similar to the boycott that occur.red in Villa Park t~ a shopping center, such center eventually having i closed because of lack of business, she could not see the relevancy of still proposi:ig this commercial facility. ~ ~ Mr. Sherwood noted that this was one of the ideal places for this type of a ; center, and that many other people moving into this area, as well as the ; employees of the hospital and medical complex, would have need for these ~ facilities. ~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~';s,:_ '. ,._._.. _ .... _.. .. . .. .. . , . ... _ . . . . , ~ ~~. ~ .- -, r.3.. t Yr.-' ~~.~ _. . 5.,~. ', . . . . . .. . , ~ ' .. ~ -~ . . , ~ ' ,a { f ; + " ~" - :r: ~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1971 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-16 (Continued) l~ 71-647 Commissioner Herbst noted that since he was not present for the last public hearing, he would like to hear the comments of the opposition on the petition. ,~~~` Whereupon Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts read the petition of opposition and upon completion, noted that of the 414 signatures, this represented 300 homes, 225 of these homes located north of the freeway. Mr. Roberts then, in response to a question by Chairman Farano, stated it ~- a ti i t d th ld b 850 h h' b c~ : 1 i ., c, s.';.: , '. ,t . ti i. s; ,t .. a:~,i ;,' ;~- , 1 ~.~: i ~' 1 , ''< ~ w s an c pa e ere wou e omes in t is area ounded by Jefferson Street on the west, the Santa Ana River on the north, and the freeway on the south and east, however, only 75$, or about 636 homes, were completed. Commissioner Sevmour observed that there was no doubt in his mind that the General Plan projected a shopping center in this general location, and a].so according to the General Plan, this specific corner was most appropriate and best suited; that from revi.ew of the plans, the development would be in good taste; and that it was also clear from statements made by the petitioner that the center would be developed in an integrated fashion, which could be an asset to the city, but with all these things considered, the Planning Commission still represented the citizens of the City of Anaheim, which was one of the basic things to consider, and in his one and one-half years as a member of the Commission, he had never seen so many people in opposition to a petition when they stated they did not want the center in this area, in spits of the Commission and City's good planning logic. Therefore, should the Commission imposz their thinking on the residents of the area, thereby qoing against their wishes? Commissioner Herbst then noted that one of the things the Commission should discuss was that the Commission must recognize this was a suitable location for this type of facility, and although he understood the adjoininq property owners' concern - what could the owner do with the corner? Commissioner Seymour replied that the property could be used for medical or commercial office uses or for additional parking for the hospital in the future; however, if conditions changed by the time the 850 homes were devel- oped, there could be a different situation, and the people might beg for this facility - that he did not want to impose his will on that large percex~.*.age of property owners of these homes regardless of his feelings. Chairman Farano then stated he did not disagree with Commissioner Seymour's i thinking, but would the people have the right to determine the type of environ- I ment they wanted to live in - since when the Commission considered the General Plan Commercial Element, it was too bad these residents presently in oppositi.on ; gave little consideration because there was very little public participation by the citizens, even after it was widely publicized, and when there was no , feedback, he found it difficult to consider that this petition represented the will of the people, not that people did not have a right to criticize a future development - but since the citizens of the city did not disaqree ; before but were doing so now, should this be considered valid when only 225 homes of the 636 homes presently occupied expressed their opposition, while there was no positive reaction from those in favor - should the Commission set aside their previous plans, or should the plans be inplemented on the basis that this represented the type of environment desired. it was felt by him that the Commission should consider any changes to that proposed on the General Plan through the proper procedure on an organized basis by re-studying and ~ re-evaluating these commercial designations in the Hill and Canyon area, and , if this symbol were removed, where should it be relocated7 However, he found it hard to believe this petition of opposition represented the attitude of all the people, and he wished that there had been some people present in favor so that an overall picture could have been arrived at to determine exactly what the people wanted, since this appeared to him to be a very one-sided opinion. Commissioner Herbst noted that from his examination of the addresses of the people signing the petition in opposition, it would appear that a sincere effort was made to canvass the entire area, but many homes were not represented,'. and he wondered what would have happened if a petition in favor had been circulated - perhaps a di£ferent picture could have been arrived at since it was his opinion this would be a gooc~. location for a small convenience center, and that it would appear it was over two miles to the nearest convenience center. . ,.. , ~ ,., . ... ... .. _ - ,. ,. ~ ° _ .. ;.,,,~:.~n'~r: ..~ ' : ' ~~ ~ , .... ~ { ; ' ~ f,~ ~:~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1971 71-648 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-16 (Continued) Commissioner Seymour stated he concurrad with statements made by both Commissioners Farano and Herbst, but noted that if these residents preferred to go one and one-half miles to a center, tha't was their prerogative, and what had happened to the other two-thirds who did not sign - maybe it was just apathy, which was prevalent these days, where people were not desirous of saying anything, but in his opinion, where such a la~ge group had indicated their opposition, this should also be taken into consideration. Chairman Farano then stated that if this represented the broad feeling of everybody in the canyon, then he would not like to set it aside. ~ ':~ 6~` Commissioner Seymour indicated that this should not be considered a fair test ~ y, for the entire General Plan for Area B, but this one area should be re-examined, and if the Commission should find each arQa indicated for these neighborhood ~ shopping centers was being challenged by the residents of Area B, then the ~ Commission shoulfl give closer examination to the Commercial Element of the ~ General Plan, _~' Mr. Roberts noted for the Commission that the agent for the a arrived in the Council Chamber after the hearing was closed,pandtioner had ;~; wauld have some additional information that the Commission wishedPtohquestion # him. ', ~; Chairman Farano then invited Mr. Rose to answer any questions the Commission '~s might have. ~ ~~ Mr. LeRoy Rose, architect and agent for the petitioner, noted that he had only ~~;° one thing to emphasize, and that was that the petitioner had indicated he ~ would build this shopping center and service station as one unit, and the design of the service station was important, therefore, it was being changed ~~ so that it would be integrated with the shopping center so that the service bays and work areas would be reversed. '' ~ ~,:,s~ Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not Mr, Rose would be in agreement ~~ with the suggestion made by Chairman Farano to circulate a petition in favor ~~;~,*,,~ of the proposal among the homeowners who had not signed the `;>;~`;k~ opposition, petition of I ~~ ~. . F;~ '- _.* " ~ ~'.kl: `< r; r .; t ' ~~ .+~ 1 .. Mr. Rose replied thaL• this wuuld take considerable time; even though he was sure a number of people would be in favor of this proposal, he would not I favor the idea of circulatin such a ~ 3 petition. Commissioner Rowland then inquired as to the number of acres in the hospital project and how many beds were planned for the first phase of development. I Mr. Rose replied that there were 10 acres in the hospital proposal and 350 beds in the first phase; that the medical facility would utilize 65,000 square ~ feet, and parkinq wauld be in accordance with the City of Anaheim parking standards for both the hospital and the medical office complex. However, I there was another oiece of property on the east side of Lakeview Avenue that also belonged to the hospital; that as a long-ti~*a student of planning aspects, his personal opinion was that he could see no other use for this property because the hospital surrounded it; that the property could possibly be used for medical facilities for the hospital, Y,ut they had spent many months to determine how much should be allocated for medical offices, and the amount used would depend upon the number of rooms in the hospital since each doctor owned a piece of the ownership of the hospital; that there would be thirty ! medical suites available, however, there were sixty doctors in the hospital facility; th.at originally the residents of the area were not haopy with the i proposal of the hospital, however, the City had approved it and it was being ~ constructed; and that the proposal for commercial facilities on subject I property met the criteria of good planning for a shopping center of an emergency~ nature where people would not have to go two miles to an available shopping center for one item - therefore, there was a need for a neighborhood shopping ~ center as there was a need for a community shopping center and then regional ~ shopping centers. Furthermore, this would be complementary to the hospital, ~ and since subject property was not desirable for residential uses, it would be spot zoning unless developed for commercial uses. ~~g.M ~ - ., . . .. - . . . . ~ . ~ . ~. ~ . ~ ' ~ ~ . ~ , , . ~ . . . ~. ~'s ~ , ~~%-~-:w.~~ ii.r~~~~' ,~ , I : ~ ~,. , .. t~r' ; ,: ; _ '`,~ i , `'~ ..., ::1 , r. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO:~iMISSION, October 18, 1971 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-16 (Continued) Commissioner Allred advised Mr. Rose that most of the Planning Commission did not feel subject pzoperty should be developed for single-family homes but for some commercial office use, and since this was going to be a fairly large hospital with only thirty suites available, subject property could easily be utilized for additional medical suites rather than considering having suites on the opposite side of the street. Mr. Rose indicated that the Anaheim Municipal Code requi.red a ser-rice station to be located at the intersection of two arterials, and the Scenic Corridor Ov~xlay 2one required the service station to be integrated with a shopping center; therefore, nothing else could be developed on the property, and the staff had indicated this was a logical manner in which to develop the property. Furthermore, the employees of the hospital would be utilizing this shopping center, as well, ^ommissioner Seymour inquired whether or not Mr. Rose was familiar with the ' Mission Viejo development, particularly as it pertained to shopping centers - ~ how many neighborhood shopping centers were located there7 ~ Mr. Rose stated he was fully familiar with this, and that in the master plan i for this develapment, there were neighborhood shopping centers farther into ~ the center of development, but they definitely made plans for these small centers for a later state of develapment in this area. Commissioner Seymour noted that the oppositon had indicated they could see a need for services, but they were y~illing to go some distance and did not want the proposal in this area. However, if there had been only ten or fifteen homeowners in opposition, this might shed a different light - when there were 300 families in opposition, then some heed should be given to that opposition. Commissioner Herbst observed that the petitioner also owned property on the east side of Lakeview Avenue - this, too, could be zoned for commercial-office use or other commercial uses, and the enlarged hospital facilities could create the potential of the shopping center and increase traffic. However, he felt the location of the neighborhood shopping center should be adjacent to the ~ hospital site, thereby keeping the traffic pattern together. Chairman Farano noted that if commercial uses were developed on the east sidE of the street, a bufferina zone ~vould have to be establi.zhed, which could mean ~ apartments. .Thus, if the center were maintained on the rrorthwest corner, the ~ street would act as a natural buffer.' Commissioner Seymour then stated that it was his feeling there was nothing on earth that stated a shopping center had to be located in this area. Chairman Farano then inquired whether Commissioner Seymour felt the people signing the petition in opposition represented the will of the entire residen- tial area since only one-third of the homes were represented. Commissioner Seymour replied that the opposition was no different than when people voted on a bond issue, where only 20$ of the voters took the time and effort to go out to vote - yet if a bond issue passed or failed, only 20~ of the population had been represented. `~ Commissioner Seymour offered a motior. to recommend to the Citg Council dis- I ; approval of Petition for Reclassification No. 71-72-16 on the basis that the ' ; use proposed was not necessar:•; that the residents of the area indicated they ; ~ ` would boycott any commercial f~cility established ~n the '°-~-'''"~ property could be utilized b the hos ProPerty; and that the i ~!` Y pital to enlarge their parking facilities, i rl* i 'r ? On roll call the foregoing motion lost by a 3-3 tie, Commissioners Allred, j ,~. Kaywood, Seymour voting "aye" and Commissioners Farano, Herbst, and Rowland i voting "no". I ~~•- Further discussion was held by the Commission on the proposal, and at its ~ conclusion, Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to re-open the hearing and continue consideration of Reclassification No. 71-72-16 to the November 1, `*`r 1971, public hearing and for staff to notify all property owners within 300 feet of the fact that the hearing was re-opened and the petition would b.: ,~ ' considered again at said hearing. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. ;`.~~ MOTION CARRIED. ~ ~ ! ~~ -. ~:`~ .,~ .. . ~. Ir' . ' . ,. ' . . .. . . . .. ~ ~ ,• L' ~~fr..~ . \ 4 .. . ' .. , . . . ~ . . . ~ ~ - - 5 0 ' . : ' ~ . . . ~.~ _a ~: .t Mr. Rose inquired of the Commission why it was necessary to re-open the ~'~~ hearing, Whereupon Chairman Fara:.o advised Mr. Rose that Commissioner Seymour offered the motion, and if the majority of the Commission felt that way, then the hearing would be re-opened. Commissioner Seymour noted his main reason for re-opening the hearing was based up~n the fact that the Commission at the first public hearing had _ advised the property owners in opposition that the h .~ ~` ; ~ '~ Therefore, it would a earing was closed. fact that they did notPexpectethe~Commission torre~openlthePhearin ~as the that they should also be given the opportunit to 5. and information. Y present any additional Mr. Rose then requested that the Commission send the petition tC~ the City Council without any recommendation. Whereupon Chairman Farano noced that State law required the Commission to consider this at each meeting for forty days, and if no decision could be reached, it would then be sent ~to the City Cauncil. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING (READVERTISED). LOIS DEE COOK AND NOXIE NO. 71-72-12 L. STEARNS, c/o Coldwell, Banker (Jerry Reynolds), 2333 North Broadway, Santa Ana, California, and ALBERT AND VP_RIANCE N0. 228g HARUKO UMINO, 2420 West Broadway, Anaheim, California, Owners; STANELY E. BELL, 9776 Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; property descrtbed as: Two contiguous, rectangularly-shaped parcels of land located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Mayflower Street, Parcel 1 having a frontage of approxi- mately 270 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 316 feet, and being located approximately 846 feet east of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue, and Parcel 2.having approximate frantages of 79 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and 316 feet on the west ~ide of Mayflower Street, Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MUITIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: P.ARCEL 1 ONLY - WAIVER OF (1) MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN . 150 FEET OF R-A AND (2) MINIMOM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A 56-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, the reason for previous continuances, and the proposal to reclassify both Parcels 1 and 2 to the R-3, Multiple-Family Residential, Zone, and development of Parcel 1 with a 56-unit, two-story apartment complex; that thp original proposal to construct two-story apartments was within 31 feet of Parcel 2, which was zoned R-A and contained two single-family homes, however, since the adjoining parcel, now known as Parcel 2, was included with the original petition, this waiver was no longer necessary, and the two-story apartment compl.ex would be within 170 feet from the existing R-1 tract farther across to the east of Mayflower Street; that since the proposed development plans did not include the entire property under consideration for reclassification, staff had prepared a typical site develop- ment plan'that could be utilized in developing Parcel 2, said plan indicating that it was possible to construct at least eight single-story units with adequate parking and recreation area, and although the applicant and the owner of Parcel 2 could not reach an agreement on a unified development over both parcels, the zoning would now apply to both parcels; and that it had been demonstrated that Parcel 2 could be developed in a multiple-family fashion. Therefore, the Commission would wish to determine whether or not the purpose and intent for requesting revised plans had been fulfilled with this revised proposal. , Mr. Stanley Bell, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the adjoining parcel could be included with the development plans; however, staff s typical site development plan for Parcel 2 would indicate that it would not be untenable or require numerous waivers in order to be develaped; that his architect had also drawn a plan which indicated I I ~ l~ ~ _~ a1.`~i~~-~~i°~_•.Sy~~~~ . ~ "\ ~ . . ~; G . . .. ~ . . .- C - ..~-. ~ r ,,, :f . __ ~ ~ ~ MINOTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1971 71-651 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-12 AND VARIANCE NO. 2288 (Continued) _=r ,: • 10 one-story units could be developed on this property, and the one-story was necessary because of the proximity of the single-family homes to the east; that the waiver of the distance between buildings could be considered technical because the placement of the doors did not fall within the Code requirement, but in other respects this proposal conformed with Code require- ments. However, the prinaipal issue before the Commission was rezoning of Parcel 2, and since this was included within this proposal, he requested the ; Commission to consider the plans as presented. W~~<`? Commissioner Rowland advised Mr. Bell that he felt he was laboring under a q~~"'~'~~ little misinformation because the waiver of distance between buildings was not '. technical since the doors were sharing an inadequate area with both entrances ``. `~; and private patios; that in the past when the Commission had considered waivers i of distance between buildings that werE less than the ordinance required, this r was generally for private patios, for individual units, or where one wall was ~. entirely blank, and this plan was not within the spirit or letter of the ;;~ ordinance, which would have to be rectified before he would give any favorable ~,; consideration of the variance. ~: i Commissioner Herbst inquired where the staircases were to the second floor ,. ,~ units. ^ Commissioners Herbst, Rowland, and staff reviewed with the agent for the petitioner the points of conflict brought forth by Commissioner Rowland, and after discussion, Mr. Bell stated that he would relocate the four doors under consideration so that they would meet the intent of the ordinance. ~_~ Commissioner Rowland stated that if there were any changes to the plan, these plans should be submitted to staff to confirm whether or not the plans met with the intent of the Commission during this discussion as it pertained to distance between buildings; that there be no openings on those walls if used for recreation or access, with one wall that would be blank, or that the developer comply with Code requirements. '',:' r , " :; s•. ' `-f °, '. M1j' ~w r~,~ ~ 't : .~t ; Commissioner Kaywood inquired as to the stairways to the second floor apart- ments; whereupon Mr. Bell replied that when the doors were relocated as suggested by Commissioner Rowland, then it would be easier to gain access to the second floor. No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst noted for the owner of Parcel 2 that the property would be rezoned to R-3 upon completion of conditions, however, he wanted to emphasize for her benefit that only single-story apartments could be constructed when the R-3 zoning was exercised and development occurred. Commissioner Rowland offered R:solution No. PC71-200 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassifica- tion No. 71-72-12 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution IIook) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; Gauer. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC71-201 and mcved for its passage ~ and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2288, subject to conditions, ; an3 a further provision that the plans be amended and submitted to the Develop- ment Services Department for verification of relocation of the four doors on units 26, 27, 28, and 29, in order to provide a blank wall to adjacent apart- ments using this area for recreation or access, or that the developer comply with Code requirements. (See Resolution Book) ~ ,,: ., _;. ~.. La.a...... AR : - - . .. .. . . ` . y ,~....w.,_. . _a ~ _. :.:.Y'~ 'A i`. ' : ~ ~, I _ ~ ~ ~ , c MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1971 71-652 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 71-72-12 AND VARIANCE NO. 22gg (Continued) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSiONERS; Allred, Farano, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. , NOES; COMMISSIONERS: None. _ ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; Gauer. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. MELODYLAND CHRISTIAN CENTER, 10 Freedman ,-', -; PERMIT N0. 1270 Way, Anaheim, California, Owner; THE PSYNETICS FOUNDATION, .~_;.,.;,-,,~ INC., Bernell L. Ausmus, Executive Director, 1212 East ~ Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, A permission to EST?~BLISH A PRE-SCHOOL FOR THE TRAINABLE ANDgEDUCABLElleMENTALLY RETARDED IN AN EXISTING CHURCH BUILDING on property described as: A rectangu- '-~ ' larl y-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 210 feet on the ,a south side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 165 feet, ~~ and being located appres_~ately 135 feet east of the centerline of East Street, .;, and further described as 1212 East Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classi- ~ fied C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject prqperty, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the proposa;l to establish a educable, mentally retarded in an existingPchurcn~buildinghethatlthele and ~ indicated utilization of a plans r pproximately 4,000 square feet of the existing 'i church buildinq for school rooms and approximately 5,800 square feet of out- door area to be used as a fenced play area; that a maximum of 75 students was ~ .; proposed for this facility; that an existing 20-fout public alley alonq the ~- southerly boundary of the property served the existing parking areas for the '~ church and school facility; that the church was t if the church were to be reactivated, it would apresently abandoned, and even ppear the proposed use would -i not pose a parking problem since the students would either be bussed or driven y `~ by private automobile to the school, and the hours of operation would be - daytimes during the week, while the church would be operating at night and ~ on Sunday; however, the Commission would wish to determine whether this use ~ was appropriate, ':, 1 Mr. Bernell Ausmus, agent for the petitioner and representing The Psynetics ~~ Foundation, appeared before the Commission and noted that the ' utilize sub'ect Y ProPosed to ~ :l 7 property under lease to them to train and educate mentally , retarded persons; that although their petition indicated 75 students, this s~ was beyond their in":ant as to the number of students, and at the present time ~ ~`i it would number about 24 with eventually expansion being considered for pre- ~~~ school and older children. , Chairman Farano inquired as to the ages of the students; whereupon Mr. Ausmus p replied that they would range in age from 4 years, 9 months to 19 years of age where a need for special tutoring was indicated. `~~ ~ Mr. Ausmus, in response to questioning by the Comaiission, noted an alley ; existed along the east property line, which extended to a public alley on the south property line, that exited to East Street, and this would be - adequate for pick-up and delivery of the children; that The Psynetics Founda- tion held Sunday meetings which were rather small, ranging from 60 to 70 persons, and the existing parking would appear to be adequate. However, a l~tter was on file which indicated that if more parking was needed, they were ~ given permission to use the parking lot across the street and south of Cook's ~ z Drug Store. i'.- ., '. Commissioner Herbst noted there had been considerable complaints from residents ; ~ to the south regarding inadequate parking when the church was in operation, ~ 7:~ and this was the reason why the c,li:zch also moved, said claims being that they were unable to gain access to their garages because of the number of parked vehicles in the alley. , ~~-. No one appeared in opposition. ~ ;j THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. '~ %` ~ .k! ;; ~: _ (• ~' J 1 ~;y~> ~ f~.~~ 'f'.r:x,. ,. . . . . , . . .. . . . ~ ~ , . ' .. , `~ ~~ W t~. ,y . _ .Y ~-; ;~..: - . - ~:~s;; . ~..-~.s~:~ t ~ ~: : , ~ . , ' ~ ~ ~ `_. i - i t ~ _ ,, ~ -- ; - ~ ~ (~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1971 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1270 (Continued) (,.~ 71-653 Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71-202 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1270, subject to conditious and limiting the number of students to 75. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer. VARIANCE NO. 2297 - PUBLIC HEARING. S. V. HUNSAKER, JR., P, 0. Box 3820, Fullerton, 6alifornia, Owner; requesting permission to WAIVE THE REQUIREI~IENT THAT ALL LOTS MUST HAVE FRONTA~E ON A PUBLIC STREET on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxi.mately 7.3 acres, having a frontage of approxi- mately 330 feet on the north side of La Jolla Street, having a maximum depth ,~` of approximately 929 feet, and being located approximately 1,980 feet west of the centerline of Kraemer Boulevard. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, 20NE. iir ' _;' : ~t * 4 `. S a .I,.. ; t. . .$! .. ~ ~ ." y':,-.:._.? ..:c; Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the request to permit division of subject property into seven parcels, five of which wou13 have frontage on a 32-foot wide, private street which would extend northerly from La Jolla Street along the easterly baundary of subject property to a point approximately 91 feet south of the Orange County Flood Control channel, where it was proposed to have half of a 50-foot radius cul-de-sac at the street's northerly terminus. Mr: McDaniel, in evaluating the proposal, noted that since the easterly boundary of the property was in line with the centerline of Red Gum Street, it would be desirable to require conditional dedication of the proposed private drive, said dedication to be accepted by the City at such time as the property to the east was pxoposed for development, and the remaininq 32 feet could be obtained through dedication for a full street. Thus, staff was further proposing that an area development plan be initiated, which would project Red Gum Street to extend northerly of La Jolla. Pinally, the two parcels adjoining subject property to the east at its northerly end had already dedicated a 32-foot strip for street purposes. Mr. Sid Hunsaker, 707 East Chapman Street, Fullerton, the petitioner, indicated his presence to answer questions and stated he concurred with the recommended conditions. ; Commissioner Herbst inquired of the petitioner whether he had made an effort to contact the adjoining property owners regarding development of Red Gum Street. Whereupon Mr. Hunsaker replied that the real estate broker had contacted them and they had stated they would probably agree to dedication of the street. Commissioner Herbst noted that the property to the east could have one industry ' which would not need access to Red Gum Street; tb~refore, some provision should : be made to require dedication. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts iioted that the staff could have the area , development plan available for the Commission's consideration in four weeks, ' but that it would not be necessary to continue subject petition to be heard ~ in conjunction with said area development plan. i Commissioner Herbst stated that he did not want these parcels to be fronting ' on a private street because heavy equipment could not go down a narrow, private ! street. Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that one of the conditions of approval was conditional dedication for a public street at such time as the property to the east developed. . . . . ~. . .. ' ' .. . . L ~ _ ~ r ~ ~ ~ r J I _ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. October 18, 1971 71-654 VARIANCE NO. 2297 (Continued) ~~ , , Mr. Hunsaker inquired whether or not Red Gum Street was on the master plan to extend northerly; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that it was not on the Arterial Highway Circulation Element of the General Plan. Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that the engineering staff would recommend that Red Gum Streel- be extended farther north to the Orange Count~~ Flood Control channel, and this should be a condition of approval because the plans did not indicate extension of the street all the way to the Flood Control channel. Therefare, they would recommend that said dedication be required, with the further requirement that a cul-de-sac be provided at the Flood Control boundary so that the cul-de-sac could provide drainage into the channel since the flow nf water was northerly. Then, in response to a question by the Commission, stated that the property owner to the east on the northerly edge of subject property made an irrevocable offer of dedication, and that the street should be extended all the way to the Flood Control channel. Mr. Hunsaker stipulated to extending the street to the Orange County Flood Control channel boundary along the north property line. Mr. Alfonso Ettlin, 452 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Placentia, appeared before the Commission and stated he owned that portion of land for 150 feet along the easterly property line of subject property which was adjacent to the Flood Control channel; that he was originally involved with another property owner who owned the entire parcel w}xen conditiona'_ dedication for 300 feet of the property for street purposes to extend Red Gum S~reet was required; that he was in favor of the proposed development so that Red Gum Street could be extended; that it was his understanding that Red Gum Street was a planned street on the Circulation Element, however, he was aware of the problems facing the City with other jurisdictions, such as the Orange County Flood Control District and the City of Placentia; that staff's recommendation that the street be cul-de-saced at the Flood Control channel was an exaellent plan; that if only a half-street was being considered by the petitioner, he would have problems, and somewhere along the line this would be a required street at such time as the ownez of the large parcel to the north and east of Red Gum and La Jolla gave dedication for a full street. Mr. Hunsaker noted that he planned to install all street improvements now and inquired whether Mr. Ettlin would be willing to install his improvements now. Mr. Ettlin gave no response to Mr. Hunsaker's inquiry. The Commission discussed the possible conditio,:al dedication of the northerly portion with staff and inquired whether Mr. Ettlin had a land-locked parcel. Whereupon Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that Mr. Ectlin had an access agreement permitting access over the Orange County Flood Control District's bridge to Orangethorpe Avenue. No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland ofFered Resolution No. PC71-203 an3 moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2297, subject to recommended conditions and the added condition that the street be extended northerly, cul-de-sacing at the Orange County Flood Control District channel and providing , drainage to the channel as stipulated to by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer. RECESS - Commissioner Rowland moved for a ten-minute recess at 3:45 P.M. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. _ ~ ~ ~~:- __ ~ \ , ~ ' .`b _ :, . . ... : _i _ .., . / ._ . j ~ ~ V MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1971 71-655 RECONVENE - Chairman Farano reconvened the meeting at 4:00 P.M., Commissioner Gauer being absent. VARIANCE NO. 2300 - PUBLIC HEARING. RICHARD G. MAUS, 907 North West Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; ANACAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, P. O. Bax 3569, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, (2) MINIMUM LOT AREA, (3) MINIMUM SIDE YARD, (4) MINIMUM REAR YARD, AND (5) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA OF A PROPOSED RESIDENCE TO PERMIT SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING P'ARCEL.INTO TF10 LOTS AND CONSTRUCT A SECOND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the west side of West Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 341 feet, and being located approximately 828`feet north of the centerline of North Street, and further described as 907 North West Street. Property presently classified R-O, ONE-FAMILY SUBURBAN, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon MeDaniel reciewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to subdivide subject property into two lots, one having a pan-handle area, to construct a second single-family ho~e; that the primary question before the Commission was whether there was justification to waive almost every sitc: development standard of the R-O Zone since the variance procedure was intended to allow relief from the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance when such application would deny subject property a right enjoyed by other properties in the general area and same zone; that there were some subdivisions ~eveloped in this general area several years ago which did not comply with all the standards of the R-O Zone, however, most R-O subdivisions that had developed in recent years had met with these standards; thac the property to the north was recently approved Eor waivers, however, these waivers were granted after land assembly of some very difficult lots was managed,to develop a 12-lot subdivision; that subject petition differed in that the property was not large enough to divide into two or three parcels; and that the Commission might wish to consider the impact approval of this ~:equest might have for similar requests for other deep lots along West Street. Mr. Richard Maus, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that after the Planning Commission had approved a variance £or the property immediately to the north, he and his wife tried to arrive at a decision on ' what to do with their property and, thus, had discussed with the developer and ; engineer of the parcel to tha north their appraisa] of the manner in which subject property could be improved, and the proposs7 before the Commission was the result; that the home proposed along the north p~operty lir.e would be built by McMichael Company and the enqineering would be by Anacal Engineering, using a home similar to the larger homes being built in the subdivision to the ; north, thereby giving the City three homes that would be facing West Street ~ which would enhance the area and would further increase the value of the homes in the area; that one of the waivers requested would still leave 15 feet betweenj the new home to the north and the one they proposed, with a masonry wall sepa- ' rating these two homes; and that the waiver of the lot size was necessitated j because there was a 5-foot strip not usable in the rear area on which nothing ~ could be built, and the driveway was already established in the area indicated ~ for the original home. . Commissioner Herbst noted that t?:2 Planning Commi.ssion in the past had granted flag lots in the hill and canyon area, however, the petitioner had a substan- tial amount of property to the rear of the existing home, and inquired whether or not there was any intent in the future to develop this property. Mr. Maus replied there was no way this excess property could be developed - the area to the rear of the garage had a square footage of less than 4,000 square feet, and there was no way to remove the building since there was one bedroom in a garage building usually used for guests because there were only two bedrooms existing in the main buildiag; and that the adjacent building to the west of the garage was us~d for storage purposes. Then in response to further questioning by Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Maus noted that there was no way the rear portion could be developed under present Code restriction~, and there was no possibility of land assembly since all of the deep lots were gone. , V ~~ ~-~'.;`~ .--`'r.:....,= . . , ~ . • ~a . ++:;;s . ~:::::~..,; .• , *` ~:.~'! :' ~ r; ; 1. 3. a ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1971 VARIANCE NO. 2300 (Continued) 71-656 Commissioner Allred noted that another attached garage could be built after removal of the existing satellite buildings, thus giving more space for an additional dwelling unit. Mr. Maus repZied that at this point in time there was no intent to remove the existing barn and garage since it was not feasible; and that the new home proposed would be similar in architecture to one of the larger homes being built by the McMichael Company. Then in response to a question by Chairman Farano, Mr. Maus noted that no one occupied the barn where storage was, and that the garage p=esent'_y had two automobiles with one guest room and a three-quarters bath. Mr. Maus further noted that after considering the variances on the property to the north, he had discussed development of subject property with Mr. McMichael, who advised him they were unable to purchase his property, and the plans before the Commission would be his own personal development, with McMichael as a contractor; and that the home would be sold. Commissioner Allred commented that the petitioner was actually developing in the R-2 Zone category with two lots rather than retaininq the property in the R-O Zone, and if this were land assembly of several lots, he could understand the request, but the petitioner was just proposing to develop a second home on the lot. Commissioner Seymour inquired whether or not staff could recall the size of the smallest lot on the tract to the north; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts stated that the lots ranged in size from 7,000 to 7,500 square feet. Mr. Maus again stated that the proposed new home would be compatible with the new homes going in to the north; that in their original idea for development they had not considered the waivers that were necessary, but because the City required a minimum 20-foot driveway width, and since the driveway had been there for twenty years, it was felt this could be used as part of the rear lot. Furthermore, there was a 5-foot strip 88 feet long that would not be usable, and it would automatically revert to the front property owner as a yard area; and that they saw no reason to build a wall or fence separating their lot from the yard area which could be planted with shrubbery or main- tained in grass. Mr. Jack Cook, 939 North West Street, appeared before the Commission and noted his property was immediately north of tlie tract presently being developed; that he had the same problem that Mr. Maus had - that he had a full acre of lar.d and maintained the setbacks required by the City at the time he built his home; and that if subject petition were approved, he would like to be given the same right to subdivide his property since he was paying taxes on property which he could not use. Commissioner Herbst suggested to Mr. Cook that perhaps the owners of the long, narrow parcels along West~Street should get together so that a new tract could be developed, rather than having requests being made similar to tha*_ before the Commission; and that the Commission, in the past, had made similar recommendations to property owners of difficu~t, narrow parcels. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve Variance No. 2300, subject to conditions, on the basis that the City in the past had granted flag lots, and that the property was adjacent to propertg which recently had waivers approved; ; that the existing home was very large and would remain on the premises; and ~ that the petitioner had a hardship problem lot. j Prior to roll call, the Commission discussed the motion, Commissioner Rowland being of the opinion that this proposal Was no different than the many built- on homes in. the city which the Ptanning Commission found repugnant; that there were fi~a other parcels which had a similar situation, and this situation had been in existence for some time; that the petitioner had not indicated any hardship existed; that it was obvious that he had been approached for land assembly by the developer of the tract to the north; that he did not feel the - ~,` .~.`"t~gz .. ~ . . . . . .. : . . - . ..,~.~ . ~ : _ ' .. _._ ~ . . . ., .. . . ~ i ~~ ~• ~' t~,. ,..r.~,r'v"b .C . ~~ ~ § ~ ` e ~. 1 - 'I ' f _ ~ ~,.~ i ~ ~ ~ , ~ MINUTES, CITY PI,ANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1971 71-657 VARIANCE NO. 2300 (Continued) proposal was in the best interest of the community; and that this would be a form of spot zoning, even though no reclassification was being considered, it was a multiple-family use proposed in the center of a sinqle-family residential neighborhood. Commissioner Herbst noted that the Planning Commissi.on had granted flag lots in the past. ' : Commissioner Rowland noted that this had been granted in the hill and canyon area where it was difficuJ.t to provide proper frontage and where developers ~ 7" made reasonable use of the did not have an Property without considerable easements; that he -, y quarrel with the plan, but the circumstances did not warrant ':~ ~ favorable consideration since it wo-~ ~+ a ld establish an undesirable preceder.'• that the Planning Commission had worked a long tiae in an attempt to upg._. ~ development in this area; and that the proposal would encourage similar _~ ; development of the balance of the large lots in this area. 1 On roll call the foregoing motion lost by a 5-1 vote, Commissioner Herbst being the only one in favor. • Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC71-204 and moved for its passaqe ~ and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2300 on the basis that the ,: proposal ~vould be multiple-family use in an R-O area; that there was no justi- ;. fication for granting six waivers from the Anaheim Municipal Code; and that ~~ this would be spot zoning in an area, even though no zoning change was being "~ re uested. ~; q (See Resolution Book) ~ , On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follo•aing vote: f~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. ;1 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. ~~i ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer. w~1l VARIANCE NO. 2298 - PUBLIC HEARING. GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH, 2530 West La Palma ~it Avenue, Anaheim, California, ~wner; WYMAN ZANDER, 6268 San ; ~~ Harco Circle, Buena Park, California, Agent; requesting `.1 WAIVER OF (1) PERMITTED USES, (2) MINIMUM LOT AREA, {3) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, ;i ` `' (4) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, AND (5) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT TO ~j, PERMIT SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS AND CONSTRUCTION OF ; ~, CHURCH EXECUTIVE OFFICES on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped ~ ;~~ parcel of land consisting of approximately 2,2 acres, having a frontage of ~ `?, approximately 180 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, having a maximum ~~ depth of approximately 533 feet, and being located approximately 666 feet east ~ _ of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue, and further described as 2530 west La ~ Palma Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ~ ,`z :i Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject ~ property, uses established in close proximit and sell a portion of the property for the constructio pr~P~sal to split off n of buildin w' an executi it ve of 4 h a 60-foot by 130-foot parcel fronting on La Palma Avenue beinqce '` ~ so13 for the church executive offices; that the existing church would remain ;: in operation on the remainder of the parcel; that it was proposed to build a 40 by 80-foot classroom building immediately to the rear of the proposed office building; that a 20-foot driveway had been indicated along the westerly : ; and easterly property lines to provide complete circulation to parking spaces that were located in the southerly portion of the property; that by selling F ' off a portion of the property for construction of an office building for ~ executive offices, the applicant had requested a use that was not permitted in }M1 ~' the R-A Zone; that it was also a use that could not be considered as an inte- g gral part of the church facility, therePore, a conditional use permit for the ! church expansion would be inappropriate; that one of staff's concerns regard- ; ing use of the office building involved its future use in the event the church headquarters were relocated; that the applicant had agreed to design the office ' ~ building in such a manner that it could be used for church school classrooms at a later date, and in addition, staff had received letters from both the : Southern California Baptist Association and the applicant in which they agreed ~` that when and if the district offices moved out of the proposed building, -`.t~c*,_ , _~_~.'-. ~ `\ ~,~ i 71-658 . VARIANCE NO. 2298 (Continued) - the church would assume its ownership and occupancy; that the minimum lot width and lot area waivers were necessary because of the proposal to create an R-A parcel with less than 140 feet of Frontage and less than an acre in area; that the waiver for the minimum number of parking stalls would appear technical in that the offices and church would not be in use at the same time, and the entire church parking lot was available to the occupant of this office building; that the maximum height limitations in the R-A Zone restricted the .- ~ height of any structure to one-half the distanc f ~ e o that structure to the property line, and in this case, a building was set back 10 feet from the property line, consequently, a 5-foot building height would theoretically be required, however, it was imp.~rtant to note that the structure would actttally be set back approximately 20 feet from any adjacent development; and that development, in all likelihood, would be two-story, multiple-family residen- tial since a request was presently pending regarding the zoning and develop- ment of the property on La Palma Avenue immediately to the east of subject proposal. Therefore, the Planning Commission would wish to determine the long-range effects of allowing church executive offices at this location. Reverend Robert Edwards, 943 South David Street, pastor of the Grace Baptist Church, indicated his presence to answer questions. Commissioner Herbst inquired whether it was necessary to lot split subject property; whereupon Reverend Edwards replied that they had discussed this with the headquarters representative, however, the board of directors indicated they preferred to purchase the property rather than leasing it, but there would be a reciprocal agreement that the church would purchase this building if the headquarters office was relocated. _ ':i. ; Re~erend Edwards, in response to further Commission questioning, noted that ;~ .~ the church headquarters did not want to purchase an acre of land but wanted to purchase only what was absolutely necessary; that they could use the '~ church's existing parking lot during the day when they had office hours, and ~ when Sunday services were held, there would be no office hours; and that the - same reciprocal parking of the offices could be utilized by the church during Sunday services. Commissioner Herbst noted that he was aware of the agreement to sell the ' off.ice building back to the church if the church headquarters moved out; " however, was there some way the City cou13 enforce this. ;~. ~,,;~ Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that this would have to be a recorded document. ~. '~ • .si,: ``.:S ;, :,';i i,'= ~,~ r;' :f.;. ii` .4::~„~.;',~'~'. s; - k; ~ .atE! ;: ~~ r,~.' , Reverend Edwaxds stated that they would comply with whatever the Commis~ion requested. Commissioner Herbst indicatea he was not opposed to the request before the Commission, but there was a possibility that in fifteen years this would be a nonconforming use with inadequate parking. Reverend Edwards noted that if there was a parking problem, the church head- quarters could purchase sufficient propexty to take care of their own parking, but this still would not amount to an acre. Mr. Lowry advised the Commission that after viewing the documents on file, he would like to advise the Commission that these were not recordable documents. Reverend Edwards, in response to a question by Commissioner Seymour, stated that whatever the Commission required as to preparing agreements in proper form would be provided. ; Mr. Lowry advised the Commission that an agreement could be worked out in the ~ form of a deed and recorded, but it would be a very difficult one on the part ~ of the church's attorney to come up with an acceptable document. Therefore, ' he would recommend that the church's attarney meet with the City Attorney's office to determine what the proper recordable document should contain. ~~~ . , r ~. ~ ti '•_a ~ : ; ; _ ; . ; , ti 1.- ~ _ { ~ ~ l~l MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1971 71-659 VARIANCE NO. 229g (Continued) Commissioner Allred noted that even if all of these documents were recorded properly, if the headquarters organizat~on determined they wanted to sell the property or if the church could no~ or did not want to purchase the property, then there would be inadequate parking if this were sold off. Reverend Edwards noted that there were 10 parking spaces proposed, whereas 16 spaces were needed. Commissioner Herbst noted that many churches in the past had qrown and sold to smaller churches, and since the variance went with the land, he would be hesitant to approve this unless some documentation could be enforced. Commissioner Seymour suggested that subject petition be continued for two weeks for the church's attorney to meet with the City Attorney; however, Mr. Lowry advised the Commission that at least four weeks would be needed for research on the project. Reverend Edwards noted that he did not object to a continuance; however, the parent organization had sold the property in Covina and were zn need of beginning construction of this new facility in Anaheim as soon as possible, and that parking could be met by purchase of additional property. Commissioner Seymour stated he was not as concerned with the required number of parking spaces as he was with the future use of the building. Reverend Edwards replied that no oae else would be on this property except t,he headquarters office or their churcli; that they were leasing out a third of the facility to the church's credit union, ~£a + l:~v t, ~ wn ~ i n m W ~'~ L~Ce~i G-aus,Q„~ ~„s~-q,t.c,'t ~ e Commissioner Rowland stated he would ~~~ two feet, and if there was no church onethistsitethwasethistsuitablenforSanWn office building - if so, then the property should be reclassified to the C-1 Zone; thus, if it were handled in this manner, the City could then administer tne property in the proper manner rather than having the property owners act and react to requirements of the Code. However, if it took four weeks to resolve this problem, he had no opposition to it, No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration oE Petition for Variance No. 2298 to the meeting of November 15, 1971, in order for the petitioner's attorney to meet with the City Attorney's office to resolve problems pertaining to recordable documents. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. MILTON NEIMAN, 1140 North East Street, PERMIT NO. 1269 Aaaheim, California, Owner; HAROLD CUNNINGHAM, 1142 North East Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting ~permission to HAVE ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN AN EXISTING RESTAURANT on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land situated at the southeast corner of East Street and Romneya Drive, said parcel having frontages of approximately 315 feet on East Street and 70 feet on Romneya Drive, and further described as 1142 North East Street. Proper~y p~esently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to have on- sale beer and wine in conjunction with an existing restaurant located in a neighborhood shop~ing center, and that the Commission would wish to determine whether the proposed on-sale beer and wine ~:as appropriate in this center, and if so, the Commission might wish to require the petitioner to stipulate to hours of operation and the stipulation that the serving of beer and wine wou13 be incidental only to the service of food, as had been a requirement in other neighborhood shopping centers in the past. ~'-~'"`.r~-1~''" - r . . •• _ - ~~ ., `lt ~ . ~ ' ~ ~ _ .^} . f,^ ' >>• ~ _ : _~? ,~ ", 1,'- . , , r~;;: ;n'. - ~~,. ,;: ' : 4" '. ' : ,: •,` - . ~: .~t:' ; ~ ^;:; s~,a~r; .,,~ i ~. ~ ~ 1`S~NU~FS~ CITY PLANNING COMMIS5ION, October 18, 1971 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1269 (Continued) No one appeared to represent the petitioner. No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ 71-660 Commissiotiex Herbst offered Resolution No. PC71-205 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant P~tition for Conditi~nal Use Permit No. 1269, subject to aonditions, on the basis that the restaurant had been in operation for a number of years and was located across the street from another operation having the same privilege, however, the sale of beer and wine shall be incidental to the sale of food. Priar to voting on the foregoing motion, Commissioner Allred inquired whether or not Commissioner Herbst felt this might not turn into a beer bar; whereupon Commissioner Herbst replied that this restaurant had been in operation for the past fifteen years serving employees of the industrial area to the north, and most restaurants had requests for the sale of beer and wine with the sale of meals. Further discussion was held regarding the hours of operation, and upon its conclusion, it was determined that the A.B.C. permitted on-sale alcoholic beverages until 2:00 A.M., however, in neighborhood shopping centers the Commission, in the past, had limited the hours of operatior., and the hours of operation of this facility should be limited to the same hours required of the Chinese restaurant farther down on East Street, namely, until 11:00 P.M. except on weekends when the hours of operation would be until midnight. Commissioner Herbst then amended his motion to limit the oceration of serving of beer and wine to 11:00 P.M., except for Fridays and Saturdays when the hours of operation could be until midnight. (See Resolutior. Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Kaywood. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; Gauer. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ROY L. PINA, c/o Carl Rau Realty, 923 PERMIT NO. 1268 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; LY.IN E. THOMSEN, R& T Investment, 710 North Euclid Street, #215, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL IAISTITUTION WITH WAIVER OF THE REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 150 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 130 feet, and being located approximately 75 feet west of the centerline of Onondaga Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon Mc Daniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the proposal to utilize subject property to expand an existing private elementary school, utilizing it as additional play area; that no additional classroom area was planned, nor would additional students be considered; and that it would appear that the addition of a fenced play axea adjacent to an existing private elementary school would be a logical expansion However, under the current zoning of R-A, the rroposed fence was required to set back 25 feet from the front property line, but if it were in tne C-1 Zone, the zoning pending on the property, then a 10-foot setback would be required. Therefore, the Commission might wish to consider the waiver to be technical in that it would not adversely affect any adjacent properties. Lynn Thomsen, agent for the petitioner, indicated his presence to answer questions, noting that the proposed use of the property would be for a play area. ~~~ . " , ' ' ' . ' . , . ~' , _ ` ~ ~ .. . . . . . ~ . o~_t~~.r~~ ..........~ .~ ~ i Commissioner Kaywood inquired as to the type of fencing that was planned for the La Palma Avenue frontage; whereupon Mr. Thomsen replied that the fence was already in existence, and it was a wire fence. Mr. Thomsen then noted that one of the requirements of the recommended conditions w as that the existing asphalt sidewalk be replaced, and he would request that permission be given to use the existing sidewalk because of the _ possibility that the property would be developed in the near future for commercial uses; and then in response to Commission questioning, stated that ~ ~~~ there also was an asphalt sidewalk immediately to the west ~= subject property. k;` ';~, Commissioner Rowland observed that the City had installed the asphalt side- ~ F walks, and these were similar to sidewal'ks all over town which were paid for "~ by citizens at larQe rather than the citizens who would benefit primarily by ~ them. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to whether or not the sidewalks ~! should be made a requirement of the approval of subject petition. ti Office Engineer Jay Titus inquzrP;i as to how long the Commission would consider ~K? the use of the property as beinc~ temporary. ;_;';~1 Mr. Thomsen advised the Commission that the lease for the school still had -' :~~ three years to run. ut~ t~i Chairman Farano was of the opinion that this was not an increase in the amount ~,;,`~ of use since no buildings were being constructed. ,;.,,}< Mr. Titus suggested that a bond be posted. The Commission was of the opinion that the use should be granted for a period ; ;,.~ ', of three years, after which time if the use was intended to be continued, the 4"_';_z;;;j Commission could then require sidewalks to be installed. h~ {~ Commissioner Seymour stated he could not underscand the logic in requiring ;~.,,;~,;; the installation of sidewalks since there was no ohange in the use proposed. ° ~ 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that 'ne property had been vacant and ,;::;y was now proposed to be used for a playground; therefore, Mr. Titus contended ;~ that the use had changed from vacant property to playground use and was the `~~ reason for requiring the sidewalks. "'~ Mr. Titus, in answer to Commissioner Rowland's qu~stion regardinq the length _ ~f time the asphalt sidewalks had been in, stated they were there at least ~ four years and were installed after considerable agitation by the school for ;, pedestrian walkways, and that there were sidewalks on the property to the ;~ east. Furthermore, the Brigham Young property a~so had asphalt sidewalks. I _ ""~ ~ No one appeared in opposition. ; ,.~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ; Mr. Roberts noted that the Commission in previous action had dela ed o ~ Y r i;• ~ r deferred installation of improvements on a parcel in the Northeast Industrial ~ ~ ; ::- Area wherein a two-year and ninety-day deferment was granted the petitioner . Therefore, it was possible for the Commission to defer requiring sidewalks. ' ~s !~ ; The Commission then inquired of the agent for the petitioner whether or not th ,:~. .- ey would stipulate to installation of the sidewalks in the event the property ' ~ to the west was developed and sidewalks were installed prior to the three-year M time limitation; whereupon Mr. Thomsen stipulated to installation of said ~' ~ sidewalks if sidewalks to the west were installed prior to the three-year F k„%i: , -~ ..,;. ' time limitation. I Commissioner Aerbst offered Resolution No. PC71-206 and moved for its passage ,~' and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1268 for a period of three years, deletion of requiring sidewalks for the three-year time limit; however, if the use was proposed to be renewed at the end of ~ three years, sidewalks would then be required. or that the sidewalks be in- t,,,; ~ stalled if property to the west was deve'_oped and sidewalks installed prior ~~ ~: to the three-year time limitation, as stipulated to by the petitioner ~ . (See Resolution Book) ' j r~~;- ~. ~~~ . ~.. . . .. . ; .. .__. ~._ • _ ri .. . . . . ~ . . ~ . i''g',~' .~L.. ~rv , ~ ^~S~ \. ' _. . i ' ' . ' . . ~. . ~ .. . . ' ~~ ~ _ _ _ ' S/~ ~ . ~ 1 -i , ~~ _ ~-~ , O ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1971 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1268 (Continued) 71-662 ~~ . On roll ca1J, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISS20NERS: Allred, Farano, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. , NOES: COMDiISS20NERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONr~RS: Gauer. ,.:~ ' VARIANCE NO. 2295 - PUBLIC HEARING AN "`-~~' f • AHEIM HILLS, INC. AND TEXACO VENTURES, 1665 South Brookhurst Street Anaheim TENT l ;' _„_ S ".>zF < • , , Ca ifornia, Owners; ATIVE MAP OF WILLIAM J. STARK, Anaheim Hills Inc TRAC 166 ``;, , ., 5 South Brookhurst T NO. 7587 Street, Anaheim , California, Agent r ?,'` ; ' ; equesting WAYVER OF (1) MINIMUM LOT AREA, (2) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH (3) MINI ;:j; _ , MUM FRONT SETBACK, (4) MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK, (5) MINIMUM REAR SETBACK, AND (6) THE REQUIREMENT THAT L ~. 1 OTS ABUT A DEDICATED STREET TO ESTABLISH A 39-LOT, SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION o i ' n property described as: An irregularly- shaped parcel of land consi~tin of a '~ the Santa Ana Canyon area approximatelyY2Xmile 1 a e a 1 n 1! s south of Santa Ana Canyon Road and approximately 1,000 feet south of Walnut Can on R y eservoir at the southerly terminus of Walnut Canyon P,oad. Property presently classifi ZONE d e . R-A, AGPICUL3'URAL f~ _ , ~ TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: ANAHEIM HILLS, INC., 1665 South Brookhurst Str t ::: ~ l eu , Anaheim, California. ENGINEER: Willdan ~ ~'i Engineering Associates, 125 South Claudina Street ~ ~x , Anaheim, California; proposing to subdivide a 33-acre I r: parcel into 39 R-A zoned lots. , ~i Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject '-_`~ property, usas establishad in close proximity, and the proposal to subdivide :~j 33 acres in~o 39 lots ranging in size from .5 acre to 2.1 acres; that the "< ,~ petitioner had indicated this hillside development would be related to and ~ complement the equestrian unit to be located immediately west of the proposed tract; that as part of the Anaheim Hills development, this tract would be located on the north side of the ridge that had been designated to sexve as ~', the boundary between the City of Orange and the City of Anaheim; that the 33- ": ~ acre parcel was a part of the 955-acre study area "F" as designated on the rtr .; ~~'' Anaheim Hills General Plan wherein 1400 units were allocated; that said plan ~ more specifically designated a range of residential densities in the area of ;;, r~ the proposed tract from 4 to 25 units per acre, whereas the applicant's pro- ~' =~ thatlthesaveraaPproximately one unit per acre; that it should be pointed out ~.~,~.;~,r; ge ratio of one unit per acre was somewhat deceiving, primarily due to the existing terrain; that the terrain would continue to be a key ~~ factor in development of the hill and canyon area, and this 33-acre site was ~~-~ in a fairly rugged section of the ridge line; that: although the parcel sizes ` range from .5 to 2.1 acres, the building pad sizes averaged approximately .? 1~ 9,000 square feet, and the utility of the remaining lot area, in most cases, ? ~t was limited; and that the requests for waivers from the Anaheim Municipal Code y were set forth in the Report to the Commission with commentary by staff. ;~ 2 ; k Mr. Nelson Fry, director of marketing, Anaheim Hill;~, appeared before the ;_ Commission and noted he had two representatives of the engineering company who had done the land planninq, Mr. William Stuckey and Mr. Horst Schor of f Willdan Engineering. i Mr. Fry then complimented the staff for having done a considerable in depth ~' ? study of the Anaheim Hills project. K i Commissioner Kaywood noted that on the Anaheim Hills' original plan a school ~ ~- ? was indicated for the area under consideration; that she realized the develo ersl ¢:~ ~ were changing the density, however, there was one school for 6 through 9 grades , F; ~ and one for• 10 throu h 12 ~ 4 grades, and inquired what was proposed. ! `. Mr. Fry replied that because of the terrain, there was no plan for a school I for this area now; ~hat they had been working with the Orange Unified School Z District as to the proper site, and because topography was a criteria, they ~ were forced to find additional sites for the elementary schools, however, the _;i. school district would be more fa:niliar with these sites. ti, ~, :i: ~ '' ; f ,S ~. ~. ..~:, ~ -. ! ~~ ~. ~ I a~l ~ r .~' . _. . ' ,. , ~ U ; l r~~'•'.( ~a 4~ -. ~ '. i ' .'7C'~•~' .: ' _.,. . . ~. . ---- I' ' ,~~ _ ~ ..~ '~ --- ---- -- ---- ---- ~ ~ ~) MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1971 71-663 VARIANCE NO. 2295 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7587 (Continued) Mr. Horst Schor, 2508 West Flower Street, Fullerton, representing the engineer of the proposed project, indicated he was available to answer questions. '~~ Commissioner Herbst stated he could ne;: ~~^~~rstand why homes proposed for lots on one acre or less were proposed tc be cnly 15 to 20 feet from the street, particularly since it was proposed to be adjacent to an equestrian area - the developer was not providing the rural atmosphere intended. - ' ` Mr. Schor replied that these lots would be for areas where lots were on a w,....,:{ - •~ slope, and most of the house would be nearer the street. However, this did ~ :~ not apply to all of the homes, and there were adequate pad areas. `y, ~ Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that this would end up with a hilly , terrain and look like a tract with houses up and down a street since the ' ~ developer was proposing very little side or front yards and a 400-foot hill : up the back of the lot. ~;; Mr. Schor then displayed a map that gave the relationship of the proposed tract with the tract to the south in the City of Orange, stating this would give a better picture of their proposal. i ~:. Mr. Schor, in response to a question by Commissioner Kaywood, stated that the i,z; City of Orange objected to the entire a_ea being named Anaheim Hills; therE- fore, they had changed the name to Santiago Hills for this particular map. Mr. Schor then noted on the map that was displayed that there would be 150 _ acres with 220 parcels, and the first tract had 13 parcels with less than ? 140 feet, while there were less than 20 lots with the small frontage. v` Commissioner Herbst then inquired as to the number of lots that would have ;`,;; ;;.;,; front yard setbacks; whereupon Mr. Schor replied that they would allow the : future lo~ owner the opportunity to place his home on the land so that there 'l would be more accessible land for a swimming pool, tennis court, etc. ` ~ ', ~i ~z; Commissioner Herbst expressed reluctance to a rove the p pP pro osed waivers if ; these were to be custom lots and homes, or that so many deviations from the rr ;: ~ '~ Code sheuld be permitted. . `' : r~~ Chairman Farano was of the opinion that the waivers should be requested at ! the time the lot was to be developed. ?' `~~`- Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that these waivers would not apply to every lot in the tract. I~ ~ ; r :~ Commissioner Allred observed that he had visited Pasadena recently where one h ~ ::• .;, ~ man ad his garage on the street while the home was built down the slope, .;~ and if the City of Anaheim was going to have hillside development, then some ,,;y. of the requested waivers should not be permitted, particularly where only .~ 5 feet between lot lines was proposed, and gave, for example, the fact that ,:~ he lived in Nohl Ranch where there was 20 feet between houses in Anaheim, ~ while in the City of Orange there was only lU feet, and there was a great ;;,, deal of difference in ~he quality of these homes' appearance. .<~: `r ,F Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted for the ~'., Commission that the flexibility in the hillside area would take advantage of ~':; the existing pads when an L-shaped house could be constructed on such a pad. ~~•'.', `:"y CommissiQner Allred was of the opinion that the re uired side Q yards should be ~c_ retained. ~s , ;: ~'w `=' ~ i; ~' Commissioner Rowland observed that if the Commission ever expected to see J-`, ' development in the canyon, there was no way flatland standards could be used - ~ the Commissi.on could not "work both ends o£ the string to the middle", and if ` = the City wanted to preserve this area in a relatively natural state, then _ "` there would have to be a great deal of leeway in the setbacks, and if the City forced the developer into flatland standards, then the Ci•ty could expect to lose the natural concept. :;a.,. ` ' ~ ~7h:iS'A(~5~~~•• . , ., ~. . . _.~ 1 .._ ' ~ t-,. ~ I - ~ I ~ ~ 'k.! MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1971 71-654 VARIANCE NO. 2295 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT.NO. 7587 (Continued) .m.,.~. Chairman Farano stated he would aqree with Commissioner Rowland's statement; ~,~.~, however, there were six waivers to consider on custom lots without any plans ~;~ presented - there was no question that variances would be needed for the _ hillside homes - but he wondered if it was wise to consider all the lots now. Would granting these waivers enhance the quality of the homes proposed to be developed in this area? '•:~ Commissioner Rowland noted that obviously these waivers were the result of ``"''"~ ' design studies on lots, and the Commission was looking at numbers that in someone's judgment would allow this to be developed in the best manner. ~ "~ Mr. Schor advised the Commission that they could have designed larger pads, " r`~ ~ but this would have meant removing about a million yards of dirt. Commissioner Allred stated he 6id not want to give the developer a"blank check" for all these lots. .~ Commissioner Rowland then stated that the minimum required side yard was 10 - feet, while the developer was proposing 5 feet - thus the Commission could grant the 5 feet provided, however, that the aygregate distance between the ', two homes was still 20 feet on any given lot, giving the same open space 4=' appearance. 1 t Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission regarding the setbacks and if all should be granted. % Mr. Schor advised the Commission that the density of the development was quite " a factor since they were looking at the overall development, and they needed to achieve some density; therefore, th,:y had arrived at 220 lots with an average of 2 acres to a unit, and this was the first tract in which they ~ proposed to increase the density, but that the overall size would still be 2 acres over most of the other lots. ` Commissioner Rowland then stated that in the areas where development could ''~ occur, the density should be increased, but where it was difficult to develop ~ '~~ areas, then these should be with a minimal amount of development or no develop- ~` ment, and that one of the problems facing the Commission was the fact that ` ' ~ the Commission was seeing only fragments of the development of Anaheim Hills - ; . - `~ therefore it would do all of the Commission some ~ good to again review the ~ :~ ~ ,., overall Plan. i 1 ~ Mr. Schor then noted that in the original approval by the City of Anaheim 1,500 units were a pproved in the study area, whereas they were now proposing only 220 units. Mr. Fry again appeared before the Commission and stated he liked the Commis- sion's ideas on the homes, and this was why in the development of a project ~ ~ such as thi~ they could bring in custom-built homes, but what they were asking ~ „ .i was to per• ° development as they proposed. ~ -- ~:1 Mr. Fry, in response to questioning by the Commission, state3 that there would be two custom home builders or individual home building, and that they had : ten custom builders that were interested in developing buildinqs in this area. i , f, ~ Mr. Schor advised the Commission that they had the authority to grade the road `~ ~~ as proposed, but 858 of the lots would remain in their natural state, and that ' ;` ` I the owners would create homes that would be complimentary to the terrain. _ '~ ;i Commissioner Allred noted he was primarily concerned with the short distance ~ ~,. _;, between homes, to which he was opposed. ~f ' Chairman Farano noted that he had no opposition to side yard setbacks but did . : not like the idea of stretching the homes across the lots so that there would ; ?;; be only 5-foot setbacks. ~, Mr. Thompson then advised the Commission that if there was to be a 5-yard setback, then the opposite side would have a 15-yard setback. R~. -, .~k! , ~ i'~ i ~ ~ 1 !? - i ~~ - ~ t - ,. . . ... ~ ,._ . . ' . .. ~ ~ . . _ . _ . f. . ,--.- ~'.. . . . - _ ~_,C.+i=.--.~..~-;,,'C~. , . . . . .. . . , . . . ~~ . ~ . . ~~~ , . ~ 5 . ; • . . . ... . ., . , :. . . 0 . .. . . . .. . .. ~. . . ~. . . . _ . . ~ .`F ' . L . :.i; ~ .. -i . ; - _ r , , ~ ~ ~ ~ / \:./ `~~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1971 71-665 VARIANCE NO. 2295 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NU. 7587 (Continued) Mr. William Stuckey, engineer representing Willdan Engineering, appeared before the Commission and noted that they were as confused as tb.e Commission aPpeared to be; that representatives of Anaheim Hills had met w3th representa- tives of the City whe were working on an Agricultural Hillside Ordinance, and perhaps the Commission were not aware of this ordinance since what appeared to be a variance was because there was no ordinance governing this type of proposal at this time. Chairman Farano then observed that if that was correct, he hoped it would be better than what was being presented at this hearing. Mr. Stuckey then stated that in one of the drafts of the ordinance it stated that the average lot should be one acre; that some could be less than an acre. However, this proposal was for abuut 1.4 acres per unit; that it was their hope the Commission would permit an average in the frontage of the lots, as well, since this was a matter of getting the lots in because there were very few places where lots could be built; that the homes would be at a higher elevation; that he hoped the final AH Ordinance would permit less than 140-foot lot frontages since one of the drafts had indicated an 80-foot frontage; that the front yard proposal was only a flexible tool and it was not intended that all lots have the proposed setback; that because of the steepness of the hills, stilt homes were placed 25 feet back, and it was also hoped that the final AH Ordinance would permit 25-foot setbacks; that he was not aware that the waiver of the side yard was being requested, and then in response to a question by Commissioner Rowland, stipulated to providing a minimum 25-foot rear yard; and that as to side yards, this was common where two property owners could get together to determine where side yards would be located. Chairman Farano then noted there had been so many changes since the Anaheim Hills concept was presented that he became a little nervous with the number of waivers requested; therefore, he would prefer that specific lots be designated as to specific waivers so that there would be no blanket approval for waivers on all lots. Mr. Stuckey note3 that a 10-foot side yard setback was too narrow for people to do much with, and if 20 feet was maintained between homes, this could provide a better area. Commissioner Rowland noted that on the lots themselves the topography would dictate where the setback should be, and this wo•uld be helpful with the final tract map if 20 feet were on each lot. Furthermore, the setback should be set by the engineer on the basis of topography since the property owners would never gat toqether and agree, nor would developers. Therefore, if this were done by the engineer, there would be no problem. Mr. Stuckey noted that from a planning standpoint, a staggered setback would be b~etter. Commissioner Rowland then stated that when the final tract map was submitted, the setbacks would be established by the engineer - thus the property owner would know what setbacks to expect. Mr. Stuckey then stated that since this would be custom engineered, something more could be done, but the final tract map would have the grading plan done already. Office Engineer Jay Titus noted that some of the pads were provided, but tne grading plan was already shown on the map before the Commission. Commissioner Rowland then noted that since Mr. Fry was marketing these lots, Why couldn't the map be desXgned with all the criteria set forth, since their engir,eers would know what to do. Mr. Fry noted that this would be very easy if these homes were being built on flat land. Continued discussion was held between the Planning Commission, the staff, and the engineer-developer of the proposal regarding setbacks and those lots that would be affected, and upon its conclusion, Mr. Stuckey advised the Commission i ;~. _, , ~_F-' 1„ a_. . , _ ~* -_- r x~s~ ~_. .,:. Q . . ~. _ '~ . _' - .. t . . .i. . ` ~ _ I "~- - - - "i. :=z:: - ~-=. ;` `'''`` ~~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1971 ~ VARIANCE NO. 2295 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7587 (Continued) that he would comply with the requirements of the minimum side yard and minimum rear yard setbacks. Therefore, he would withdraw requests for these waivers, and Lot Nos. 1, 2, 30, 31, an3 39 only would require waiver of the minimum front yard setback, and he wauld so stipulate. Mr. Thompson noted there was still another problem facing ~he Commission, and that was the street standards, although the Engineering Division had reviewed ' the street standards that would be appr~priate for this type of development ~ in the area, they were still drawing up these standards, and they were not j complete. Therefore, if the Planning Commission approved the variance and tract,l it should be tied into street standards approved by the City Engineer. Mr. Titus noted that the street standards would have to be coordinated with ~ the City of Orange - this was the reason they were not complete. j 4 Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that this should be brought to the Commission at a later date for a separate hearinq. Commissioner Seymour then inquired whether or not the developer was aqreeable to waivers 1, 2, and 6 only, except that waiver 3 applied to 5 lots as set forth previously - would there be any additional changes to the tract map, or would there be any more grading. Mr. Roberts noted that one of the attachments submitted with the variance petition listed six sections of the R-A Zone wherein waivers requested was the basis for the information used in the Report to the Commission. Mr. Stuckey advised Commissioner Seymour that they would be agreeable to the waivers 1, 2, and 6 only, and that waiver 3 would apply to Lots 1, 2, 30, 31, and 39. No one appeared in opposition. ~!.5::,;~~~s~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. {~i `; '~ 76' *tij Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC71-207 and moved for it~ passage ~'~; ; and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2295, in part, granting j;. ,F~ waivers 1, 2, and 6 and qranting waiver 3 for Lot Nos. 1, 2, 34, 31, and 39 .}; only, as stipulated by the petitioner, and subject to conditions. (See i ?;~ Resolution Book) i +~'~'~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ ~"'x. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. ,,~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. y,. - ;;Y ABSENT: COMMISSIOIdERS: Gauer. ~ i t Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. ~ ,~ 7587, Commissioner Seymour seconding the motion, and MOTION CARP.IED, subject to the following conditions: ~.,~ ::'j ~ *~ ~'~'''i (1) That the approval of Tentative Map=~f Tract No. 7587 is granted . ~ subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 70-71-33 and ~._:. :~ apprnval of Variance No. 2295, now pending. ' ~ (2) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- ~,-~= division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative ' ''"' form for approval. ~ r-: a ::'.>;_ ' (3) That in accordance with City Council polic ~^' y, a 6-foot masonry wall ~,,, shall be constructed on the east property line separating I,ot t;r' Nos 7, 8, 9, and 10 and Weir Canyon Connector, except that for •, corner Lot No. 7 said wall shall be stepped down to a height of "" ; thirty (30) inches in the required front yard setback. Reasonable ~- ' landscapinq, includinq irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full ,.,;;k~' distance of said wall, plans for said landscaping to be submitted *:';; to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance, the City of "''~'~` Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said .1 landscaping. ' r _ - - ~ , „~' ~..~.~ . ' _` . ~ , ' ` ._, i : , f -;. .. ~;~ I. - . ~ r--- ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ --- ' `~! ' I~INUTES, CITY pj, ANNxNG COMMISSION, October 18, 1971 71-667 'VAR'TAN'CE NO'.'~2295 AND TENTATIVE MAP O~ TRACT NO. 7587 (Continued) (4) That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground ~ utilities. ,;i;M (5) That a fir.al tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. t6) That street names shall be approved b t4: ~; '~. .y:';:: r. ; ~_F I;'~ ~~ ~ . I'`~:~,, ~. ,,,~. _::,' ;3:~',,. ,_." ! i. ~C;.~'~~~'~,~:.~'~: '~.7'_..:;.... , .~w.,: -, ,. ~ :~w. Y- - .. .. ~ ~~'; t , i- •: .-Aiy to approval of a final tract map, y the City of Ananeim prior (7) That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate parl: and recreation in-lieu fees as deter- mined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the buildinq permit is issued. (8) Tha•. drainage of subject property shall be dispased of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. (9) That grading, exaavation and all other construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner as to minimize the possibility of any silt originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water runoff originating from or flowing through this project. (10) That all proposed street sections and standards shall be approved by the Planning Commission. ADJOURNM~NT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Allred offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION ~ARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 6:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, G~~2T ~J't~'l~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ~~~ ~ ~ . . .. .- -. . . . . _. . ~ , ~~ ~..;--~ ~ :~~ ~. ' , n ..•s,~ ~+`-~ . T ~~"' ~ ~~~" ~ L ,- r ~ • ~a ~ T S A i!l .~ ~: ~ 7 ~ '~ l F :.t S 5 h. ~' 1 Y ~ '.. y r4 1: r ' 1 r t:~r, ~( 1 . ~~ ~ ~I. ~ . ~ ; t~: 1 1 : 1 .,~~~ f ( I .~ ~ R 1 { f ~ S. ~ X t ~ f 3 1 ~ ~ ~ a ~+, ' l, r ~ ~~ l~ r i ~ . ~ ~ ' t ~ ~^ , Y y~ ` f y 4 ~ ~ ~ . W ! t j t ~ ~ ti ..F..'', ~i ~i i; -~~ L'r ~': ` ~ _J1 i~ ~` ~ +, 1 ~ -4 l i , . t ' Y ' ! ,5 , .,~ ..,, , , ..; . k J t _ y ~z i' .4. . J . ~ ...., . . _ ... . -.. .. , , . , .. . .. .. .. .. . .. ~ .. . . w .r~ 1 ~ ~7~.-. , . ~ . . ~ ~ ~ . . . . ~ ~ . , . M~R ~~ .. . - .~. .. .. _ ..._ ___ . . . _ '."'w^'1 . _... __.._.._...-. o. ~4-~ ~